Jacek Kopecky wrote:
>
> Paul,
> I disagree, the document is in my opinion logically XHTML while
> it uses XSLT, which is perfectly legal due to open content model
> of XHTML. The handling is mainly HTML, and the HTML processor may
> use XSLT to have the complete picture, but according to HTML spec
> (IIRC) it is free to ignore anything unknown to it, like the
> xsl:value-of element.
Well then choose a vocabulary without an "open content model." XML
Schema. Docbook. QAML. I could just as easily provide an example in one
of those vocabularies. Then you would have the choice of saying it is a
valid XSLT stylesheet that looks like an QAML document or an invalid
QAML document.
Even if we stick with the XHTML example, there are two choices. Either
XSLT is presumed to be "in charge" in which case the XSLT specifications
rules are applied to the whole document and you get the HTML content
that the author expected, to be subsequently handled by an HTML
processor, or XHTML rules are applied and the unknown elements are just
ignored silently.
Paul Prescod